work laws that let workers decide whether to support unions or not. david madland from the center of american progress and greg mourad from the national right to work committee will debate. later, we will talk to frank newport from gallup about the role of independent voters. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: good morning, and welcome to this friday edition of "washington journal." january 13, 2012. of the gop contenders are canvassing south carolina today in advance of last -- next saturday's primaries. the president is in washington. the front page of "the new york times" talked about u.s. warnings to the state of iran over the strait of hormuz. we will be taking a break from presidential politics this

morning and talk about the money and corruption in washington. the super lobbyist jack abram off -- abramoff has been on a book tour of the last couple of months. he has been lecturing about ethics in washington and offers a prescription for what he sees as the problems in this city. i will show you a number of clips from an event he did at harvard in december and talk with you about your views about washington. here are the phone numbers -- interesting this morning to hear from people around the country and also invite our washington viewers and listeners on c-span radio to offer their perspectives on washington and the power of money and the thoughts of how it might lead to corruption. that is our topic , our

topicabramoff at the focus -- that is our topic with jack abramoff as the focus. the super lobbyist was convicted in 2006 and a dozen or so other people also convicted, including a former member of congress, bob ney, a few members of the bush administration and others from the staff. after the ethics reform risk -- legislation was enacted, mr. abramoff serve three and a half years in prison and over the past few months he talks about this new book in which he describes as he sees as a culture in washington and lays out a series of prescriptions of what he thinks ails the capital city. during these first 45 minutes we will show you a number of clips from the events he held at harvard university in december with a professor there who is also well known in government reform and openness movement and talk with you about your views

of washington. is what he describes in this book your prevailing gb a prevailing view of washington or you think it is just a case of a few bad apples. that is one of the big questions. you might also want to think about mr. abramoff's motives for going on the book tour and talking about these issues. a lot of people in the lobbying community not happy about what he is doing, suggesting he is attempting to rehabilitate himself so he can go back to making money in this town. that is the discussion about how washington works, your view. at this time with frustration at the capitol city, are these issues the system, are they driven by your view of the e economy, -- i think you get the picture. we will start with our first clip. this is, again, from an event at harvard. the interview were talking about mr. abramoff's book and his experiences. and in this clip people talk about politicians not directly

asking for money. [video clip] >> randy cunningham and blagojevich and jefferson and people like that who got handouts and want you to actually put cash -- giving you a man you like duke cunningham, it if you want an appetizer, $2,000. that kind of stuff is rare. but the fact is, these numbers are not asking for country -- contributions about something they are disinterested in. oftentimes the charity will pay for their travel. if they are asking for money for the republican or democratic congressional committee, it is because they have been given a requirement to raise the money to get the chairmanship. there are very few of joystick -- altruistic raising for goodwill industries. it is not directly and their bank account. but it might as well and there. host: let me put a little bit of

the side -- of the other side on the screen. this is a "bloomberg" story about the abramoff bookstore. here is a bit of what is written. is what i wanted to share --

robert livingston called abramoff poisonous and evil in a recent interview. but there is some of the controversy about abramoff speaking up. we will begin with a call from illinois. harold is a democrat. caller: thanks for having this topic. i have been waiting for this to come up. i think a lot of the public is disappointed with our government. understanding it is taken over by big business, money. it is a shame actually that our country has come to this point. i think we have been working with a government that has been

broken for decades and now we are at the point where it is actually to the point of where it is, i guess you call it, not repairable. you almost have to come to the point where you have to restructure it all the way over. host: question for you. i assure you studied history and there have been lots of scandals through what all the american history. teapot dome scandal, 100 years ago. do you think washington is more corrupt now than it was in those days or a possibility that we just have more information? caller: no, i think it is definitely more corrupt. big business and money mainly. i don't know what ever happened to the -- a lobbyist, instead of being political bribery to get a politicians vote, why isn't it -- lobbyist should be when you get 500,000 votes and you go to

your congressman and senator and tell them this is what everybody thinks. it should not be a monee proposition. and when newt gingrich don't have enough money to run and he makes $1.6 million from fannie mae and he does not have enough money to run, there is something wrong. host: mike. republican from chantilly, virginia. caller: i just wanted to say that they always blaming washington. the problem is the voters that don't do their homework. when we know that the politicians are corrupt it, and we know they keep coming back and electing them again, we are the problem. it is not only the politicians. we know that big business -- we realize any time you pay somebody something he will do something for you. but we have to go to bottom of this and realize that we are the problem because we are not doing

our homework. when you want to buy a pair of shoes, you did not go to just one store. you go to different stores and look at prices of the issues. you go the cheapest price you can get. we have politicians -- we know he has done something wrong -- and we are still electing him. this is a disgrace. i hate to say this. americans have had good politicians before and we can do better right now. it makes me really scared when i heard that the supreme court saying that companies can invest individual. that is the biggest mistake the supreme court ever made. and they should go back and think about that. because money will change the human beings. politicians, no matter where they are, in africa, united states, middle east, they are corrupted and look at whoever pays first. that is the job they will do first. host: from chantilly, virginia. mike saying the public is the

problem. twitter -- next is a telephone call from pennsylvania. john is an independent. caller: good morning, susan. the financial-services industry has contributed $8 billion since the year 2000 to political campaigns. there was a judge connected to the mining company that was given $3 million for his campaign, and he, of course, won his campaign. trying to make a decision on the company. of course, in their favor. anybody who does not think this bribery is going on all the time and congress maple spend at

least half their time in fund- raising -- congress people spend at least half their time in fund raising. it is so crooked. we need a 28th amendment quickly. host: what would that do? are you there? what is your proposal for reform? caller: the 28th amendment. that would get all money out of politics, and corporations would not be persons. that would change -- moved them in the right direction. it would not solve everything but it would put us back to what i think the founding fathers, with the republicans reference so often, what they wanted. they did not want a bought the government. host: thank you so much. jack abramoff offers some of his prescriptions for what he things ails the nation and washington. we will take a look at these, summarized from his book. first of all, amend 80 --

eliminating any contributions from those lobbying the government -- if you want to hear more about his arguments, we have two events and our c-span video library. this harvard event you are watching clips of this morning and also he was on our book tv "afterwords" program. california. cliff is a republican. caller: good morning. c-span is now looking to mr. abramoff for advice? isn't that interesting? host: cliff. we are not looking to him for advice. caller: we see what you are doing. host: what are we doing? caller: are you going to ask ms.

anthony for advice on child- rearing? this obama administration is more aligned with k street then we have seen. more than 70 lobbyists working in the white house. we saw the chief of staff mr. lew made $900,000 working for citigroup and just appointed cecilia munoz, a registered lobbyist. hope and change, anybody? host: thanks, cliff. there is a story about obama fund raising on the front page of "usa today." this was released yesterday, so i am sure you probably have seen more of the detail. more than $24 million went to the democratic national committee to build a campaign mode -- structure. this is from "the wall street journal."

here is a little bit more about the political intelligence business.

that is a perfectly legal new occupation in washington over the last decade or so, political intelligence. finally this from "the washington times" this morning.

be more in "the washington times" today. pennsylvania. del. caller: the person who spoke about the obama administration have a lobbyist in the white house is correct. but it is just a little sample of what was going on under the bush administration. the number of registered lobbyists went from 5000 to 35,000. the gentleman who called earlier saying it is the voters irresponsibility. but it is too late. this whole government is nothing but corruption. the supreme court -- they should have been able to envision this. when they placed all of these conservatives in there. you know who i am talking about, the journal of his family did not pay taxes of $700,000 -- the gentleman whose family did not pay taxes.

they will never get impeached with republicans holding the congress. when the democrats' recapture, goodbye clarence thomas. examples of people who need to be brought down. host: next up, myron, republican in eureka, south dakota. caller: one of the things that really bothers me. i see where bain capital was involved with a few other big corporations who bought clear channel back in 2006. any wonder that you have russia limbaugh and marked levin and sean hannity. they're out there trashing people like ron paul every day and promoting their candidate, mitt romney. i would think that is a real conflict of interest. people liked bortz, down the line. trashing somebody who believes in bringing a little sanity back into washington, d.c., and they

are working for mitt romney and nobody ever brings it out. i think that is the real conflict of interest. host: this is a quote from americanhero on twitter -- >> charleston, indiana. democrat. caller: i suggest maybe they should look at the australian law. i am not any kind of expert but the way i understand it in australia, for every dollar spent for lobbying they have to pay $400 in taxes. thank you. host: thank you for your call. riviera, massachusetts. boston metropolitan area. george is an independent. caller: jack abramoff, getting away with really big scandal,

with duke cunningham. supposedly doing 10 years in jail. that is a joke, too. if every person would do something like they did, we would still be behind bars. it is the same how corrupt this country has gotten and even the american people. they do not want to work. half the not even want to work. just give me, give me, and following see just like the big business. host: what is your prescription? caller: i think we should go back to the basics and have people honest. i call my congressman, i never talked to him. all i do is talk to the person at the desk. i get tired of calling. you can't even talk to him. i appreciate you listening to

me, susan h. -- susan. host: after the abramoff scandal contras pass what they call sweeping ethics reforms. on his leadership and open government act of 2007. banned from lobbying, unless they were grandfathered. some of the tenets of the post- abramoff at this legislation. jack abramoff in his book and on

his store has some thoughts about ethics reform. let's listen to some of what he had disappeared [video clip] -- what he had to say. [video clip] >> you cannot buy a congressman a meal if they sit down and use a fork in a knife. but if they stand up and they use their fingers, that they can do. they consider that a reform. another reform, you cannot buy somebody a $25 stake -- or in d.c., probably a hamburger. in you are a congressman, i cannot go to lunch and have a hamburger it is $25. but if i declare the launch a fund raising event and i pull out of my jacket and $5,000 checks from pacs and handed to them, that is completely legal. host: we are talking with you about some of convicted former lobbyist jack abramoff's views on how the city operates.

we will talk -- we are talking to you about what his motives might be for this, his views of washington, and if you agree to some degree about the effect of money on this process. if not, why not? all of this on the table. there is a monee story in "the washington post." -- money story in "the washington post." they go on to write in this -- bigger states, where television

advertising is needed to reach most voters. and in e-mail -- i' next is a call from ohio. good morning to rich, republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: i think we are missing the point, the whole money going back to congressman is only coming from the united states. a lot could come from foreign countries or bank companies or foreign military, it could recirculate back in and they could come under the laws they are allowed to lobby our present or congress. the other thing we are missing

is when we give away foreign aid, a lot of countries are putting back to lobby against our country. they may have 300 million to push back in our country if they are given billions. i will hang up and hear comments. host: as you do it here, your comments are for your fellow viewers to react to this morning greg thank you for coming in. hastings-on-hudson, new york. ron is a democrat. good morning. caller: can you hear me? thank you for c-span. first of all, i don't care at all about what mr. abramoff's motives are. i care about the truth of what he is saying. next, i would like to get maybe a slightly different perspective on this. i understand lobbyists and every american has the right of free speech -- free-speech and to petition their government. but when you think about it, when you have a jury trial for a

single individual, the jury only gets to hear facts that have been vetted through the court, through the rules of evidence, etcetera. and somehow insured to be valid. yet when we have a congress deciding the fate of the entire nation, somehow they are allowed to hear evidence from people that have an economic interest in the outcome. it seems to me there is some disparity and rather than looking at first amendment issues and the right to petition issues, we should be thinking about where does the congress legitimately get its information. host: two themes about mr. abramoff's rehabilitation efforts. this is from alabama --

next is a call from kentucky. this is justin, independent. caller: first, i want to say that mr. abramoff's motives in my opinion are half and half. i think half is he really feels a little bit of bad about what he had done, but he's got to make a living and he's got about $44 million to pay off and the pizzeria he was working and probably will not do it very effectively. but when you look at the numbers, 94% of all elected officials in washington have more money than their opponent in the campaign. the way i see it is it is an investment. if you are not going to give millions of -- you are not going

to give millions to the candidate because you think he is a better guy. if you invest in a stock, like a company invests in an official, you want a return on the investment. if you look at what has happened, $16 trillion of bailouts to pay bonuses, where american citizens on main street cannot get a loan. all of these things are done when the american people look at this, and we accept this because the it is not something we can personally do about it. we obviously do not support it, but there is nothing i can personally do. mr.n't ask mr. mcconnell or -- to stop doing this. i feel that unless there is a cap of how much you can spend individually on a campaign or how much you can get for a person -- or excluded from the

process, but there is not much we can do. we are just talking to hear our voices. i love the program, don't get me wrong. but there is nothing we can do. but you have a good morning and thank you for taking my call. host: i want to go back to a clip from jack abramoff's but event, and larry lessig, a professor, is an interviewer. we have been televising congressional hearings and in this clip mr. abramoff talk about how hearings can sometimes be used as a tool in a lobbying effort. [video clip] >> people think the house and senate hearings are like child and you have a lawyer and you get a fair hearing and everything is hunky dory. it is not. they are kangaroo courts and congress. most hearings are designed to achieve a goal that is not ever expressed. in the sense that lobbyists would push a hearing, it would

be for the purpose of putting your opponent, whoever it might become on defense, and setting them back. you are going to spend $1 million preparing for a hearing. you will spend weeks and weeks not sleeping preparing for your hearing. you are not going to do anything that might be a problem -- meaning, anything your opponents might be able to come back to you. so, one of the great ways to disable your opponent is to organize a hearing. unfortunately, it is done all the time. host: back to your telephone calls this friday morning, talking about your culture of washington and your views, whether or not some of the systemic issues can give rise to corruption and how prevalent it is and whether or not you think there are needs for reforms. all of that on the table using jack abram loft, convicted former lobbyist and his new book, which he outlines his views on washington, as our discussion point. new haven, conn. chris is a democrat.

caller: good morning, susan. thank you for taking my call. the first things i think we have to deal with is the cost of television and radio advertising. i think there is something we can do ourselves. i have done this once. there are a lot of people who have a lot of free time on their hands, out of work. many of us are retired, like myself. godown and demanded to look at your television and radio stations public file. find out what they are charging for their advertising for political ads. and by the way, despite the fact that they say they are supposed to be the lowest rate, the prices are the most jacked up rates. go in and take the employee's time, because they've got to watch you while you examine the public file, because nothing can be taken out of the public file.

of course, it would be nice if they put the stuff on line so we can see it more conveniently. but once you go in and do this, they are going to begin to think about -- a lot of people going in and looking that the public file is going to cost them a lot of money. and they have to think twice. what we ought to do is get the advertising out and we need to offer free time to candidates because it is so costly that it demands that they ask for these bribes from the lobbyists. host: thank you for your call from new haven. other news, i mentioned it in the open but here is more from "the new york times." the article --

a leaked story to "the new york times" today. back to your telephone calls. next is freddie watching us from los angeles. caller: i think one point most people seem to be missing about this and they have been missing it for years -- i have been following politics for over 40 years -- when you talk about corruption, everybody talks about bribery. what about extortion? sometimes a there is a thin line between extortion and bribery.

to do what you have a natural right to do and you have to pay off bank and government officials to do it, that is not bribery. perfect example is microsoft. microsoft is a corporation -- it never gave anyone campaign contributions and did not have an office in washington. under the clinton justice department they were sued under antitrust laws. bill gates got the hint. bill gates now has a corporation that gives campaign contributions. they now have an office in washington, d.c. another perfect example is in california, building a stadium in los angeles. in order to build a stadium they had to bypass regulatory agencies and environmental agencies in california. they paid off the legislature, the paid of jerry brown, got an exemption and the stadium will be built. but when companies now want to build things they have to conform to those regulations. when i asked jerry brown he says -- when the elephant kids busy,

the ants get out of the way. a perfect example. government officials believe the american public are a bunch of ants. we have to get the government of the business of regulatory agencies controlling the economy. if you want an amendment, how about this? separate the government from economics. then we would have a free market and this country would boom. thank you for the time. host: freddie from los angeles. in "the baltimore sun" -- they are looking at an arcane record-keeping practice called upcoding which gives a more severe diagnosis to receive a higher reimbursement. this is joseph ramirez on twitter --

next is a call from ohio. good morning, kathleen. caller: i hope you guys have dylan rattigan on with his new book all about money in the process of elections. and have a web site called getmoneyout and it really goes back to what ross perot said in the 1980's. we have to get money out altogether. if you have money in, there is a way corporations and those with massive amounts of money are going to figure out the way around any kinds of rules and regulations to control how much money you can put in. i hope you have him on about his bastards."sdy and one thing i say to myself and to the american public, we

do have to use the system that is set in place at this time, which means, call your congress people, e-mailing them, getting in line in d.c. yourself what a lobbyist, making appointments with your congressman or converse people when they come home. we have a system set up now and we need to use it, we need to hammer the legislators about wanting the process change. i help you have him on. the other person i hope you have on it is professor william black. he was the head litigator during the savings and loan scandal. he talked about boring that scandal there were 10,000 prosecution referrals that they made and 1000 people -- over 1000 were prosecuted. and he talks about what has happened just in this latest economic fiasco and why people have not been prosecuted. and that they can be prosecuted.

host: i am going to let you go. sorry. it's a good points. we have a lot of people in line. she mentions the last financial downturn. this story is in many different papers. here is "the baltimore sun" version. this is a reuters piece. next call is from texas. you are on. caller: the last little article about bernanke believing the economy was all right. that is a load.

another thing, this one called in saying there is nothing individuals can do about this corruption. you want to see these big corporation and, i don't know, these lifetime appointed senators -- the biggest crooks various. you want to see them do without money? stop paying your taxes. without you paying your taxes, these corporations will have a dime. because that is the only place you're getting it from. host: thank you, don. from texas. a little bit more from jack abramoff. [video clip] >> the reason lobbyists laugh at most efforts to reform, because they know what it is thrown at them by the people throwing it at them, they will overcome it. innovation of staff versus members, is one that becomes

immediately parents did when you are a lobbyist or if you are working in congress. the truth is, congressman used to have no staff. webster had no staff. the great minds of our past, the great leaders of our past, wrote their own bills, wrote their own correspondence, did their own meetings. now, since the federal government is involved in so much and in so many areas of our lives, they have large staffs. and a lot of corporations and like other places, the step -- the staff on the show. host: about seven minutes left in this conversation this morning. emporia, kansas. phil, republican. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thanks. caller: what i am listening one of the things i hear is a general sinister tend to the whole thing from folks calling in. i am not sure it is quite that. i understand when the word corruption is used, it conjures

up images of people with long, sharp teeth biting into people. but i think what it is at its root is really about the size and scope of government. we are also dependent on government that may be one man's lobby or interest group is not very appealing to somebody else, and that is what the lobbyists do. i think what you have when you get government so big is people are no more honest or been dishonest than -- then they have always been. you talked about teapot dome earlier. it is true. but i did not think the intentions are always malevolent. it is a sliding scale. if i can accomplish this end -- it some lobbyists can help me to this end, try and do that. and i think the only way out of this is to change the whole dependent scheme on government. we are also dependent on it now. i am a senior. some people might argue, that lobbyist for seniors is a terrible guy.

i think he is great. maybe some of the group might feel different. number two -- stuff about corporations. i don't know. i guess it is just the i see something on a sliding scale. the only way i see we can change it is changed the nature of the importance of government to us and the size and scope of it. how we do that is beyond me. it host: thank you for your -- host: thank you for your comments. good morning. caller: i want to know if anybody in this country thinks citizens united is good law besides mitt romney and a certain judge's wife. host: next is minnesota. this is a call from lisle, independent. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would disagree with a comment

a gentleman made some time ago that there is nothing a common person could do. i would advise them to log on to coffepartyusa.com. you had annabel park on there a couple of months ago, one of the smartest individuals i have ever heard. their position paper will spell out many of the things we should start with. also, i disagree it is just the doctors that are defrauding medicare. when you have the largest insurance company, for-profit insurance company in the usa that has deprived the people of getting the claims that they should, deprived clinics and hospitals and doctors from receiving the proper amount, and nothing is ever done about that. the banks are too big to fail but these corporations, and

especially the health care organization, the largest one, i guess they are twisted that they are too big to mail. host: stephen hall on twitter -- i would argue, if you watch the program, we had not only nonprofits and reformers, but lobbyists and historians giving historical perspectives. all kinds of different aspects of this question over time at the table. it's just so happens we have been televising this jack abramoff speech in this week and it gave us a platform for talking with you about how washington works. maryland's. -- croft and, maryland. rosie. caller: i would like to disagree with jack abramoff. i did not think it is the size and scope of the government. the federal government has

certainly been larger in the past. i do think it is the financial sector. i think it is the money. i think we need a functioning government. and i would like to agree with the caller who just called in from minnesota on the great ideas that he gave. thank you so much. host: thank you for the call. "the washington post" frontpage. two stories. panetta decries afghan video. you have seen some of the pictures traveling around the globe on the internet. u.s. bows to probe of use of corpses -- vows to probe the abuse of corpses. the off-lead is a domestic story, based on the economy.

our final call on this topic. lionel, and republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. first-time caller. i would like to share what happened to me yesterday at his rally. mitt romney's. host: we lost larry. let us close by telling you if you are interested in watching more of jack abramoff's speech, go to c-span.org, the video

library, and tight in his name. you will find this and other events we have covered with him. thanks for your comments. next, david wasserman from a "cook political report." we will talk about state redistricting particularly in light of the supreme court hearing of the texas redistricting case. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> should the government irresponsible for policing the broadcast airwaves for profanity and nudity? tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span, we will air oral arguments from the supreme court on current federal communication commission rules. also other perspectives on line in our c-span video library, including the argument of the 2010 second circuit court of appeals case. >> we thought we knew what the

commission's rules might be but i did not know i can go beyond the bewilderment position you have taken, but the commission's changes, so now we have no idea what the new commission's perspective may be. >> the commissions indecency regulations have a safe harbor for programming after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m. the fact is any broadcaster under some confusion in their own mind about any particular broadcast would be found indecent by the commissioner, simply to just put the programming in safe harbor. >> search, clip, and share. >> in this place you will stand for all time among monuments to those who fathered this nation and those who defended it, a black preacher of no official rank or title who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams and

are most lasting ideals. >> saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern, president obama is joined by civil rights leaders and the king family for the dedication of the martin luther king memorial on the national mall. this weekend on american history tv. saturday at 6:00, civil war scholars look at the direction of the war as well as northern and southern strengths and weaknesses at the end of 1851. sunday at 3:00, from oral history. after serving from 1950 through 1970 in the navy, now senator john kerry became a vocal opponent of the vietnam war. this weekend and c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: david wasserman of the "cook political report." he has been in our table -- at our table before. talking about redistricting of house seats and some political battles. david wasserman is one of those guys who has all kinds of information about the house of

representatives in his head and we will tap some of that this morning. redistricting -- where is the process stand right now? guest: there are seven states that luckily did not need to. 31 states who are done with redistricting. 12 states who still need to withdraw their congressional lines. in some states, it has been a very contentious process. it has led to the courts. another case it has been simpler. one of the ironies is the inventor of gerrymandering -- named after former massachusetts governor gerry actually un- gerrymandered their lines this time but other states probably should give awards for creativity for the most grotesque districts. host: which states gained the most seats and which with the biggest losers? guest: the biggest winner was texas, picking up four seats. the other big winner was florida, picking up two seats. big losers were new york and ohio, which each lost two seats

and a smattering of other states who gained or lost one seat apiece. all in all, 12 seats changed hands so it is a continuation of migration from the northeast, the rust belt we have seen. but it is unclear who in benefits. even if texas is a republican state, the four new seats were largely driven by minority growth. that is exactly what the supreme court right now as determining whether hispanics or republicans ought to get more of those four seats. host: not the first time there were redistricting battles in texas. we were talking about jack abramoff and it earlier bear -- 10 years ago there was redistricting issues in the state. give us more details about what brought this case to the court and what is at stake. host: it is a complex case because it is operating on several different tracks. under section 5 of the voting rights act, states with a history of voting discrimination need to obtain federal preclearance to take effect.

taxes's legislature, dominated by republicans -- texas's legislator -- would have granted republicans, even though 65% of the growth was among latinos also latinos cried foul. there were a variety of lawsuits filed in federal court in san antonio. the court ended up drawing its own map replacing the republican plan when it was determined there was not enough time for states to obtain pre-clearance from the district of columbia circuit court. so, we had a situation now where the state is actually suing to block a federal court map at the supreme court level and the supreme court last monday heard oral arguments in the case to decide whether, in effect, the federal court has jurisdiction to draw this matter superseding with the legislature did. i think two seats that are at stake -- three-one republican

or 3-1 hispanic democrat. host: for our viewers, the phone numbers on the screen. this is not a discussion just about texas redistricting but in your owns -- state if you have questions, there have been a lot of cause and affects the sitting members of congress. we welcome your the dissipation. you can also email or tweet us on "washington journal." this tweet -- so, what are the possible publications of the supreme court finding and are they doing this on an expedited basis? guest: all kinds of implications. what a tweeter was referring to is republicans in their mad drew a district that was between 66wasto 67% hispanic in southwest texas, stretching from san antonio to el paso, but it was designed, according to the

latino plaintiffs in this case to elect a republican because it swat doubt latino precincts with hired registration and turnout with pre sings with lower voter registration and turnout. so, there are all kinds of maneuvers of the republicans in the legislature allegedly undertook. but the implications of the tape before the supreme court are pretty big. republicans, a lot of them hope that the supreme court will take this opportunity to strike down some of the voting rights act which and they feel is antiquated and requires a lot of southern states that don't need to be covered by federal big brother and to submit their client -- plans for pre clearance for the justice department or there district court of appeals. if a bank that were to happen -- and most legal experts -- if

that were to happen -- and most do not expect them to overturn the voting rights act in this case, that would be huge. but certainly in the back of the minds of some of the proponents of the federal court map arguing the case before the supreme court are very nervous about. host: what are others? guest: the supreme court could also issue a little bit of a milder ruling, telling the federal court to go back and take a look at the map they drew and draw something closer to what the legislature did. one of the hints that she justice roberts gave during oral arguments is he did not like the way a district in the dallas- fort worth area was drawn compared to what the legislature did. there was a little bit of a hint that the justices on the conservative side of the court did not like the judicial activism involved in drawing a coalition district in that area, a district that would be majority-minority, but made up

of a coalition of black voters, hispanic voters, and others. the supreme court has typically frowned on a district that involves a coalition of different minorities, whereas in the past they have supported districts that have a majority of the minority. host: other states may having to revisit? guest: i don't think so. texas has been the legal crux of this redistricting cycle. we were originally thinking that the justice department -- cents and this was the first democratic appointed justice department in a redistricting year -- would apply more scrutiny to maps that southern legislatures would drawl, because this would be the first time we have a lot of legislatures that were controlled by republicans in the south. instead, we have seen, in a majority of states in the deep south, the maps republicans have drawn largely preserved very

heavily african-american majority districts and the justice department has been fine with that. there have been incentives for republicans to keep african- americans in those districts of the surrounding districts are republican. a total demise of conservative white democrats from the south as a result of these plans. but the one exception to the justice department that the attitude was texas. --y've vociferously argued they will suffuse -- they boast of firstly argued in their briefs. it shows the prioritization of the justice department and what they were looking at in terms of 2012. the focus has not been so much blocking the seven maps, with the huge exception of texas, as it has been combating voter i.d. laws. host: we will talk about texas and other redistricting issues. "los angeles times" has a story

about longtime member of congress jerry lewis, the dean of the california delegation, longtime congressional appropriators who announced he was retiring. you could see the headline -- the write it is the sixth and most significant departure -- a few words on what is happening california, please. guest: redistricting is a convenient time to retire. in 1992, almost 50 retirements in the house. we are not even halfway to the 1992 benchmark. but california over the past week, we had a flurry of republican retirements, bringing the toll of retirements there to six. what we are starting to see is the fallout from the state that a unique redistricting process. voters in a ballot initiative took power to restrict out of the hands of legislators and put it into the hands of a 14-member

citizen commission which redrew the lines last august. i think deserves a lot of credit for untangling a very confusing mess that california had for the last 10 years. ast incumbents' salt seniority, voters saw as in transmission. -- entrenchment. the map was to give california security. it has worked. california has twice as much seniority. now we are seeing a huge amount of turnover and i do not think retirement is going to be it for california. already more than one out of 10 members from the state. with so many incumbents faced with the prospect -- drawn out of their districts, drawn into political cover districts, so it is entirely expected. host: a list of current retirement. 14 in the house so far. nine democrats, five republicans? up to date? and you can look at the list on

your screen. including steve austria from ohio. who is the youngest and what was his reason, dan boren? guest: he is the most conservative democrat remaining in the house and in this client it is tough to blame some of the conservative democrats when they are in the minority in the minority. they are certainly outnumbered ideologically in the party, not only him but mike ross from southern arkansas is retiring this year. many think he will run for governor in 2014. so, i will not say a mass exodus but a minor exodus of remaining conservative democrats. one of the interesting statistics about 2012 is after 2012, it is possible there will not be a single conservative southern democrat remaining in the house as a result of both of these retirement and redistricting. host: this is a source from you.

another consequence of redistricting is house incumbents who have been pitted to run against other house incumbents. a quick look at this list. california 39 has gary miller against ed royce, and then 34, richardson against hahn, 16, 16. host: this race has got a lot of attention in ohio. host: what he say when you look at this list? guest: these house races are fascinating.

they forced other members to choose sides were stay out of it. the list has already changed. gary miller decided he would move into the district that jerry lewis had been running in. so that race in our county is no longer. gary miller is moving to a new district. part of the challenge for democrats is to have more of these members of the republicans. there are 12 that we count right now. we have not seen a trend with republicans against democrats. 10 involved the same party. that is ill bit of a problem for democrats -- that is a little

bit of a problem for democrats. they could be competitive against republicans. there is a race in california that focuses the attention and those kinds of matchups. that will be a fascinating aspect to watch. host: we're talking about house races. all on the table with journal@c- sdavid wasserman. lincoln, nebraska. caller: i was redistricted last year. i didn't always agree with ben nelson. i would like to have more democratic representation in my state.

we had three electoral votes in 2008. two land for the republicans. went for the republicans. i want more representation in my state. guest: democrats account for 1/3 of nebraska's votes. i think the caller may be confused. i do not know how it could be restricted and i'm not sure about ben nelson. gerrymandering is alive and well in places like nebraska. republicans who have the control map all the drerw w

way from the western end of the state to the eastern end of the state taking in more counties in any congressional district in the country. it was designed that way and you can see that to allow the second district to remain as republican as possible. barack obama won the second district vote in 2008. the goal was to create a nub -- you see that light blue corner of that district and draw out that every of bellevue and to district.read district d that helps the case against the republican across the table so

far. the first district appears to be safe. caller: good morning. i am so glad that i got through. you're probably the institution that has the most trust in the united states of america. of the original 13 colonies, we're now up to 50. we have pre under 50 million in population right now but we of the same amount congressmen -- 350,000. i realize -- the argument for that would be that corruption would not be -- the power would not be so centralized. each of the 50 states has only two senators makes such large

states as the midwest, wyoming, states like that have no more power than at large population states such as california, new york, florida. thank you. guest: this is a question we have raised before. the number of members of the house has not changed since 1911. the american population has grown astronomically since then. the average number of residents that members of congress represent is closer to 700,000. there are some people who would argue for expanding the size of the house. it gets harder and harder to

conduct retail campaigning to meet your constituents and get around to those at county fairs and have a relationship with the people that you represent. even if we expanded the house by 200 members, population would catch up in just a few short years. host: former member of the house and governor of south dakota died this week. here is a photograph from this morning's "the washington post." 72 years old and died of breast cancer. he left the house after a manslaughter conviction with a driving accident in his home state. a biography and obituary in the

"the washington post." with a tweet -- we have a tweet from a viewer in florida. guest: a law was passed the was a silver lining that required the legislature pay no attention to the incumbents won in drawing -- when drawing its new boundaries. to draw a map that would create a few more competitive districts and probably rain in the advantage that republicans have in the florida delegation, even a state that barack obama carried in 2008. what we're seeing is maybe a couple of district that are more competitive, but republicans still have the majority.

a problem for the democrats is like the problem across the country. democrats have more precincts that are 90-10, so it is easy to cordon off the democratic vote into a select number of districts and the remaining districts could be mostly republican. that is hurting democrats across the country, but particularly in florida. it gets very difficult to draw other district that are competitive or even democratic- leaning in other parts of the state. florida is gaining two seats. i think we will see a new democratic-leaning district in

orlando with a high population rican voters.voteuerto host: we talking about the house. this is from "the wall street journal."

host: those markets are affected by the high-cost of advertising. today."m 'us"usa bob kerrey is considering a bid for his old senate seat. host: as we talk about the house, dorothy from texas, a democrat. caller: hi, david. i have a question regarding the keystone pipeline. what would that have an effect on the needs for the

redistricting, especially here in texas. democrats want the keystone pipeline that has been projected for three years. it is owned by an arabic prin ce. they have built facilities -- what is the keystone pipeline have as far as the need to redistrict and the hispanic vote, which you know is going to be there because that is a job? guest: the caller has a good question -- how do issues like the keystone pipeline play into redistricting? members of the texas legislature prioritize what incumbents

wanted in the process. most of texas is represented by republicans that got to keep the territory they already had. that map was not changed very much. it could play a big role in the senate. out of the four seats, republicans would need to win -- north dakota, montana, missouri, and nebraska, states daughter in that same keystone pipeline corridor that was pretty serious contest for republicans trying to get those four seats. host: we have a couple of minutes left with david wasserman. we're talking about redistricting and the challenge

to texas' redistricting plan. the supreme court releases the audit of its arguments on friday each week -- releases the audio. delaware up next and this is albert, a republican. caller: good morning. what is happening to the new york redistricting? they were supposed to come out last week with the blinds. do you know what is happening in new york? guest: florida and new york are two of the states that the big outstanding question marks. what is wrong to happen in the empire state? frankly, we do not know. this is a map that will be

decided by three powerful men in new york. the assembly speaker and governor andrew cuomo, who is a democrat. andrew cuomo has said he will not sign a new set of maps -- he has tried to burnish his credentials as a reformer in new york state. this is been a part of his message. i think it is likely this map will be drawn by legislators and it will not necessarily be pretty. it has lots of credit districts with interesting names like the district.aullwinkle which members are going to get the ax.

libby two republicans -- will it be two republicans? one seat needs to be cut off from upstate. a democrat from the buffalo area, republican bob turner from queens. that could be one solution to the problem. host: las vegas, independent. caller: the term "congressional redistricting" -- why don't they call political shuffleing? guest: i guess you could call that. or you could call it musical chairs. it has all kinds of nicknames,

both pejorative and formal. that is how the process works in some states. in other states, redistricting is pretty simple. host: do we know when the supreme court will tell us their opinion on the texas case? guest: i think we'll expect it sooner than most supreme court decisions. the texas deadline has already been pushed back in the primary has been pushed back. eighing thes were waitin need for texas' timeline. they had wanted to take place before may. can the primerica be pushed back as late as other states -- can the primary be pushed back as

late as other states? host: we have a tweet from michael. guest: the court visited texas redistricting in 2006 and we ended up with a new map to district tos' 23rd include more latino voters. this time the supreme court could do something similar to make a more similar to what the t was.ature's intene host: this has cost a lot of interesting races this year. we hope you'll come back. we will look at independent voters, the makeup of them in

the electorate and what potential of fact they might have on the outcome of elections. we will look at a big battle in the state of indiana over right to work laws. toll be back with two guests talk about that. [video clip] >> tonight, or ordnance on

current rules. you can find other perspectives ne at the c-span a video library. >> we know what the rules might be. the commission changes. now we have no idea what did you perspective maybe. >> they have a safe harbor for programming after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m. any broadcaster under some confusion about whether a broadcast would be found indecent is simply to put the feogram in the save hour. >> in this place you will stand for all time, monuments to those

who fathered this nation and those who defended it, a black preacher, no official rank or title who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideas. >> saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern, president obama is joined by civil rights leaders and the king family for the dedication of the martin luther king memorial on the national mall. this weekend on american history tv. saturday at 6:00, civil war scholars look at the direction of the war as well as northern and southern strengths and weaknesses at the end of 1851. -- 1861. sunday at 3:00, from oral history. after serving from 1950 through 1970 in the navy, now senator john kerry became a vocal opponent of the vietnam war. his story on american history tv this weekend on c-span3.

>> we will get rick perry's surprising comments. >> there are a surprising number of scientists who have manipulated data. >> i rate the comments on a scale. you could get four pinocchios. or as low as one pinocchio. >> rating the truthfulness of political figures and others. >> if a politician says the same thing over again, they know they are saying something untrue and they will say it anyway. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: our next topic is on the right to work laws, focusing on the state of indiana. there's been a battle for quite a while. let me introduce our guest. david madland is the director of the american work project, a progressive think tank. is vice president ofd the national right to work committee. what is the concept? guest: the right to work without being forced to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. host: how many states have right

to work laws? guest: 22 states. abilityken the workers' to get paid fair wages and benefits. they join together in a union and are able to negotiate an equal footing with their employer. that is good for not just those workers but for other workers who are not part of a union. host: make the case forit. guest: the fundamental problem is that the union contract is not universal benefit for all workers. and so the notion that a union contract is a benefit to all

workers that are subject to it is a fallacy. lots of workers would prefer nothing more than to be out from that union contract and to be able to make your own way. it should not be that these people are forced to pay for representation they did not want that would give up if they could. guest: no one is forced to join a union. the law allows if a majority of workers agree to join a union, that you yet is able to negotiate with the employer a clause that requires everyone who is benefiting from the contract to pay just for the portion of the contract that benefits them. that means when you negotiate a contract and in forcing a contract, the worker must pay

for those fees associated with that. they do not to pay for other things like that. they have to pay for the cost of that contract. without that, there would be an economic incentive that does not work. you provide a service for workers and they get it for free -- that does not work. host: you are arguing that i get the wage benefits negotiated by that union and it ought to pay for them. guest: if you're a worker that is benefiting -- you could be in management. if you benefit from that contract, you should pay for the benefits of the contract. you don't have to pay for things

that are not part of that direct contract. the union must represent all the workers. that is the law. guest: negotiate a members-only contract and leave those people free to negotiate on their own and you have no problem. guest: that is not true. the supreme court has confirmed that the freedom of a union -- unions do not want to do that. they like the power of a monopoly at the bargaining table. they have to represent the people they just disenfranchised. they go to the employer and say we want to write a contract with

you. everybody else, you treat them as you want. that is what i'm advocating for. i want those people to be free of the union. guest: generally the workers benefits it got when they join a union. they are also most likely to of health benefits. there would enjoyed higher wages and higher benefits but not pay for any of the benefits, any of the cost of doing business. guest: that is the opposite of what i just said. maybe they do better or maybe the worse.

but they want freedom. if the union increases the wages in that workplace, it is doing it by holding back the more productive. host: you have set the table for our conversation. i want to give you the phone numbers. you can send this a tweet or you can e-mail us. and be asked about the relationship between the federal government and the states. guest: the federal law sets the basic standards. it allows states to pass right to work laws. when you are a member -- when you benefit from a contract, you

should pay for that contract. host: let me put the map on the screen. is this a demographic trend for right to work states? guest: right to work states are traditionally the old south and most of the mountains. among the last places to start moving towards right to work. places where people of more of a mine for independence and not feel they need a union -- most of these laws were passed decades ago. host: is indian at the only state where right to work laws are being debated? guest: a bunch of states are considering it.

new hampshire was most recent. control by a republican government. a number of republicans decided to vote against right to work and to uphold the governor's veto. guest: the governor is a democrat. the threshold was 2/3. it did not come to a vote in the senate. we passed it to the senate with a 2 divided by st. majority -- 2/3 majority. host: indiana is the hot-button state in this debate. let's listen to some debate. [video clip]

>> too often we never get that chance. right to work law is a requirement. everyone knows that among the minority favoring the status quo, passion on this issue is strong. i respect that. if this proposal limited the right to organize, i would not support it. for the sake of those without jobs and those young people just beginning the ascent up life's latter, i ask you to make india at the 23rd state to protect right to work -- to make indiana. host: we have an ad sponsored by the afl-cio.

[video clip] >> some politicians are playing politics. this law does nothing to create jobs. we need our leaders to start working to fix our economy. tell your representatives week to help families and stop pushing right to work. host: arguments pro and con. there are so many callers. --'s go to the heart of this which scenario has the tendency to create more jobs. how does right to work laws increase the prospect for job creation? guest: we have heard from site selection consultants.

large percentages of their clients knew all the right to work states out before the started looking at other factors. so we find as governor daniels said in indiana, the state had a lot going for it in terms of an educated workforce and great workers and central location in the country, they often never get a chance to compete for jobs because they are not a right to work state. guest: the statistics you are indicating are bogus. the site selection committee -- these are paid people who are paid to say these kinds of things. any study finds no affect on employment. the most important thing to consider is oklahoma, the most

recent state to pass right to work. the manufacturing employment, the kind of employers still looking at right to work, decreased 50,000. also, the unemployment rate has decreased since then. am i saying right to work caused this? no. it is not a factor. right to work is nowhere near the top factor they consider. it never cracks the top 10. guest: the oklahoma study that you cite -- to produce the largest of the downturn. it has decreased ever worked and it has decreased by last in

oklahoma. you talk to actual businesses -- they do not list right to work among the top 10. they say about -- they are afraid that the nlrb will come down on them like a hammer. their confidential clients will not move -- they strike the right to work states off the list immediately. guest: that is a strong statement that i don't think has any justification. the business does not identify themselves. about oklahoma -- the unemployment rate has gone up. the number of new businesses that have come to oklahoma has decreased since right to work

was passed. it has not have the effect. our economy will be great after we passed right to work. those same claims were made about oklahoma. wages have come down. host: lowry from new jersey, a democrat -- larry. caller: the full title should be right to work for less. another example of how we are in a race to the bottom. never-ending search for cheaper labor can be borne out easily by the chart reflecting the in, and equality that is going on here. it seems that certain people will not be happy until we are making chinese wages. i think it has a lot to do with

the problems in our country right now. i am a proud union member. i have worked hard. i have a penchant and health benefits -- i have a pension. guest: right to work states are not about lower wages. the move to right to work states because they understand a union only has a financial incentive to organize a work force wants it. i the problem with the human is not the wages. the problem is the work rules. when the guy that swings a hammer cannot also turn a

wrench, that is the kind of think companies are looking to avoid. the union does not have a financial incentive to immunize. -- unionize. i have heard from business leaders -- you get the union you deserve. if you treat your people poorly, you get a union that will impose restrictive work rules. host: michigan, good morning to doug, an independent. caller: i am a former member of two unions. i am a part of the michigan freedom to work coalition. we're expecting legislation to be introduced to pass a freedom

to work legislation, which is similar to right to work legislation. michigan has been devastated. we have lost over 800,000 jobs in the past 10 years. if you look at the top five states decree jobs in the last 10 years, we're all right to work states. the bottom five states that have lost jobs are all forced unionization states. i am pro union. i pray to god we can pass legislation in michigan. guest: i think the first caller had it right. what happens is they undercut workers' abilities to get decent

wages and benefits. workers get lower wages and benefits -- $1,500 on average for union members. that is a big difference. the strategy is a race to the bottom. it is bad for individual workers and a failed economic strategy. that is to you're trying to compete with. that is a failed strategy. the right strategy is to invest in education and to invest in the middle class. when you undercut people's wages, there is no demand that the other businesses depend upon.

that is what drives people to relocate their business. as far as the last caller, some states have that faster or slower. the evidence of right to work has no impact on these things. the state with the lowest unemployment is right to work. the state with the fastest and slowest growth, brighright to work. there's no evidence when you compare apples to apples. states m through z have had a faster growth than a through l. the south, may be to teach the warm weather.

no impact. host: let me put a few comments by e-mail on the table. this is ralph, a democrat from syracuse. host: and this view from seattle.

host: our necks, comes by phone from oklahoma -- are next comment, david. caller: thank you. i live here in oklahoma. i have watched the wages decrease dramatically since 2001, since frank keating, who my voted for and i'm ashamed to have done so -- they took our right to bargain away. i have watched our wages decrease by least 25%. my wages 1 from $22 an hour -- my wages went from $22 an hour down to $14 an hour.

i went from paid insurance to not having paid insurance. my wages have dropped and my benefits have dropped dramatically since 2001. it did not happen slowly. it happened all at once. the command and chopped everybody's wages -- they came in and chopped everybody's wages. they got the right to work past and it was over. guest: the right to work lot was not what caused your problem. the right to work law did not affect collective bargaining rights. you have the right to bargain with your employer. if it had, it would've been declared nonfunctional. when it became effective,

people in your unit that did not want its representation could not be forced to pay for it. conditions deteriorated. european is serving you badly -- your union is serving a badly. guest: the average is basically what the studies show us. wages and benefits go down when you pass right to work laws. also, jobs do not come. what is behind this? if you create lots of jobs and wages stayed the same, who wouldn't be for this? what is behind this? either ideology, some opposition to unions, or a political opposition to unions.

there is no economic evidence that they do anything good. the do things a bad for workers. they weakened unions. so we know that they'd weakened unions. unions organize workers to get involved in politics. they tend to vote more for democrats. so republicans oppose them. guest: your assertion about the statistics is false. for every site you show they make a difference, i can show the other. the wages are higher in the non right to work states.

there's plenty of evidence that right to work states do bring jobs. the right to work states are weather in the storm in much better shape. host: south carolina is it right to work state. help us understand the correlation. guest: i would suggest there is not a correlation. it brought bowling into that state -- boeing. overall, how many jobs has a it brought? south carolina has been right to work for decades. perhaps it was from loaded and there may be other factors in south carolina.

guest: can i respond? right to work has no affect. that is by her from his answer -- that is what i heard from his answer. i'm sorry that we have to get into this academic debate. those studies to not control any of the factors that you would need to control for if you were going to do an academic study and find out the effect of right to work is. the studies that do that have no impact. it is a debate between junk science and there's no real impact. >> that is done by epi, a union- funded think tank.

host: another worker from illinois writes -- we're talking about the right to work laws because of the big debate in indiana over this. lancaster, pennsylvania, van. cal caller: sorry, you're not favoring the worker. the workers should get a right to join the union and one is represented by the union, he should have a justifiable wage of the revenue dollar. if the executives can give themselves a high bonuses and high wages, the working man on

the production line or union shop should have a person that can bargain for him. what you're advocating is for the person to go into work and he can ask for a wage, but he does not have any kind of chance of getting wages, increasing wages. these things are just what a corporation would want to have so they can bring wages down dramatically and then we're not going to have people that are being well paid to be able to afford to make a living. guest: i agree that workers should have the right to join unions and to bargain

collectively with their employer. part of the work force wants to be able to make your own deal. if they get excluded by the union contract, a lesson learned. that's the fundamental principle of freedom that this country is based on. the national labor relations act is a cynically written a piece of legislation. it guarantees the right to refrain from doing so e. you can be forced to pay for a it. that is an exercise in cynicism. the right not to associate anhas

ceased to exist. host: we have a clip from mitt romney on his view on workers rights and right to work. [video clip] >> i have been campaigning. i see companies building new manufacturing facilities all over the south. i think we have to come to grips that businesses will go where they think the labor rules will be productive. they did not mind paying wage rates the same. work rules have to be structured so that the enterprise can thrive. that will be up to the states. host: whether the republican candidates are supportive of right to work? guest: they are all unanimous in terms of state right to work laws.

host: will this issue to be fought in the presidential campaign? guest: i think obliquely. i don't think it will become a major debate. whether unions should exist or whether they have a powerful and positive impact on the economy is going to be a basic debate in the presidential debate. what is not been part of the story is that unions are could not just for their workers but they are probably good for all workers in that state. they raise wages and benefits for all workers. to have some union members who negotiate for higher wages and benefits and there is a spillover effect for non union members. they have some political power. the business lobbyists spend

more money and are more powerful. states that higher utilization rates are more likely to route health coverage. -- are more likely to have health coverage. if you pass right to work laws, you limit or'occurs ability to advance policies that help the middle class. guest: it is not an argument to force people to subsidize and support an opinion that they do not believe in. workers the do not want to be part of a union should not be forced to pay union fees and dues. try and enforce that. unions are finding ways to get around that.

people and not paying for that. guest: let's talk about the basic idea of freedom and what rights you should have. that the law is not being in force -- basic rights that workers have. they have a democratic vote. there's a vote about whether the workers want to accept the contract. there is the right to pay for joining a union. there can be a vote to decertify the union. we have a trade-off in a democracy. you can say, i do not want to pay taxes. you pay basic fees as part of the deal.

guest: unions are not the government. guest: you have to join the bar association if you want to be a lawyer. as a condition for employment, you pay for things. access forgive you all things without paying fees. host: kelly in indiana. caller: thank you. this is a great piece you are doing here. the earlier caller said we would be making chinese wages without unions. china has the perfect economic model, according to an editorial in "the wall street journal." i know unions due to production

and how they protect lousy workers. one of our citizens in indiana has written a book. you can go but his book. he will talk about the bully pulpit of the union. we have a huge building containing the indiana state teachers association. i look at that the city's huge building in washington. the unit is padding their coffers -- the union. god bless the gentleman speaking for me. host: sam in new hampshire. t.car is independenc caller: if you don't want to work for a union, you don't have

to join the company that has the union. that is your free right. the comment about picking up a hammer -- operations in unions negotiate these things. under that stance, that is the corporation's fault for negotiating that. to think that you don't have a right, you have a right not to join a union and not to work for the company if they have a union. to take away that right would not be right. host: thank you. you have spent 15 years on this issue. tell me what drives you to spend